ED 070 661

DOCUMENT RESUME

24 SE 01.5 470

AUTHOR Voelker, Alan M.; Harris, Margaret L.TITLE Measuring Science Concept Attainment of Elementary

School Boys and Girls.INSTITUTION Wisconsin Univ., Madison. Research and Development

Center for Cognitive Learning.SPONS AGENCY National Center for Educational Research and

Development (DHEW/OE) , Washington, D. C.WRDCCL-TR-197BR-5-0216Nov 71OEC-5-10-15435p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$3.29DESCRIPTORS Classification; Conceptual Schemes; *Educational

Research; *Elementary School Science; *Evaluation;Science Education; Scientific Concepts; *TestConstruction; Tests

IDENTIFIERS Research Reports

1

REPORT NOBUREAU NOPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

ABSTRACTTest items were developed for assessing the mastery

of 30 selected science concepts on classification. These conceptswere drawn from the areas of physical, biological, and earthsciences. A schema of twelve test items was developed for eachconcept. Procedures used in the construction and revision of thesetest items are described. The tests were given to beginning sixthgrade children and the publication includes most of the statisticaldata. Separate data analyses are presented for boys and girls.(PS)

!...'";',-,t;VP4.74:4".-krAit:',` ""4". ,4

'010,54e45AV

1 Th

1.1.;;;;;51/4.1,4 ."19.e.41. 44 :fpy--4,54-.70

...4 r ,r5 1,4 ,n., A

er4A..."01,.:4.1.4 4 .-4 0 ' -{'0`./ ' 't 0 r,',.' 1 1..,), -it h L. t.,,,,,,Fs.'` -...----'4%... i -76;,1e.Y,V'''.'9:..4N4,46

gi:Siiirt.W.Z./T-K-4.3.1e,,,,:,,:,,,,,,,,t..,

,.r.,,,,,*,,,,,p,r_.-:, , 0.",-... ...

'1114,.'

g ,fry

r 'A4I .S.VE

0 ,

!K.*,!.,,,y,4,4).-x!.-

FILMED FROM BEST AVAILABLE COPY

r)

UtPARIMPO 01 141 41144EDUCATION N ARI01410E Of ItnICA,140%

x A , .t

Technical Report No. 197

MEASURING SCIENCE CONCEPT ATTAINMENT OF

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL BOYS AND. GIRLS

By Alan M. Voelker and Margaret L. Harris

Report from the Project onA Structure of Concept Attainment Abilities

Robert E. Davidson, Lester S. Golub, Herbert J. Klausmeier,Thomas A. Romberg, B. Robert Tabachnick, Alan M. Voelker

Principal Investigators

andThe Quality Verification Program

Mary R. Quilling, Director

Wisconsin Research and DevelopmentCenter for Cognitive LearningThe University of Wisconsin

Madison, Wisconsin

November 1971

Published by the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, supportedin part as a research and development center by funds from the United States Office of Education,Department of Health, Education, and'Welfare. The opinions expressed herein do not necessarilyreflect the position or policy of the Office of Education and no official endorsement by the Officeof Education should be inferred.

Center No. C-03 / Contract OE 5-10-154 .

STATEMENT OF FOCUS

The Wisconsin Remo arch and Development Center for Cognitive Learningfocuses on contributing to a better understanding of cognitive learning bychildren and youth and to the improvement of related educational practices.The strategy for research and develoiment is comprehensive. It includesbasic research to genirate new knowledge about the conditions and processesof learning and about the processes of instruction, and the subsequent devel-opment of research-based instructional materials, many of which are designedfor use by teachers and others for use by students. These materials aretested and refined in school settings. Throughout these operations behavioralscientists, curriculum experts, academic scholars, and school people inter-act, insuring that the results of Center activities are based soundly on aknowledge of subject matter and cognitive learning and that they are appliedto the improvement of educational practice.

This Technical Report is from the. Project on the Structure of ConceptAttainment Abilities in Program 1 and from the Quality Verification Program.The Quality Verification Program assisted in developing tests to measureconcept achievement and identifying reference tests for cognitive abilities,while the Concept Attainment staff took primary initiative in identifyingbasic concepts in science at intermediate grade levels. The tests will beused to study the relationships among cognitive abilities and learned con-cepts in various subject matter areas. The outcome of the Project will bea formulation of a model of structure of abilities in conci:pt attainment ina number of subjects, including mathematics, social studies, and languagearts, as well as science.

iii

Contents

Page

. List of Tables vii

Abstract ix

I Introduction 1

II Procedures 3Concept Selection 3Test Development 3

Readability 4Validity 5

. Content ValidityReliability 5

Item RevisionSubjects 7Test Administration 8Data Analysis 9

III Results and Discussion 11Means 11

Tests of Concept Attainment 11Tests of Task Attainment I 2

Standard Deviations 13Reliabil ities 13

Item Indices 13Item Difficulty 14

IV Conclusions 27

References 29

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Lists of Science Concepts by Topical Area 4

2 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Lorge-ThorndikeIntelligence Test and Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for Studentsin Population and Samples 7

3 Distribution of Fathers' Occupations for Students in the Samples 8

4 Means, Standard Deviations, and Hoyt Re liabilities for Tests ofConcept AttainmentScience 12

5 Means, Standard Deviations, and Hoyt Re liabilities for Tests ofTask AttainmentScience 13

6 Item Indices Based on Concept and Task Criterion ScoresScience 15

f

Abstract

The procedures employed in constructing and revising12-item tests of concept attainment for 30 selected scienceconcepts are described. The total score and individual itemstatistics for data collected on a group of beginning sixthgrade children are presented and discussed. Separate dataanalyses are presented for the boys and the girls.

ix

IIntroduction

The project entitled "A Structure of Con-cept Attainment Abilities" (to be referred to asthe CAA Project) has as its primary objectivethe formulation of one or more models or struc-tures of concept attainment ability. The devel-opment of the model or models is to be basedon the collection of actual data.

In the fields of both educational psychol-ogy and science education, much discussionin the literature has been devoted to classify-ing and/or defining types of concepts. Accord-ing to Klausmeier, Harris, Davis, Schwenh,and Frayer (1968), concepts may be defined inone or more of four ways:

1. Structurally, in terms of perceptibleor readily specifiable properties orattributes,

2. Systematically, in terms of synonymsor antonyms,

3. Operationally, in terms of the proce-dures used to distinguish the conceptfrom other concepts,, or

4. Axiomatically, in terms of logical ornumerical relationships.

Bourne (1966, p. 1) states that "a conceptexists whenever two or more distinguishableobjects or events have been grouped or classi-fied together and set apart from objects on thebasis of some common feature or'property ofeach." A comparison of this definition withthe definitions stated above reveals a markedsimilarity between it and a concept definedstructurally.

The roots of both these definitions seemto be based in the scientific process of classi-fication. As such, concepts which are formu-lated as a result of this classification processmight be identified as members of a group of

concepts known as classificatory concepts.It is concepts of this variety with which thisproject is concerned. A classificatory con-cept is defined as a concept which has threecharacteristics:

1. There is more than one example ofthe concept,

2. The properties (attributes) of the con-cept can be described, and

3. The concept can he labeled (named)by a word or compound word.

This definition served as the basis for theselection and analysis of the subject-matterconcepts.

The major steps in pursuing the objectivefor formulating models for the attainment ofclassificatory concepts are as follows:

1. To identify basic concepts in languagearts, mathematics, science, and so-cial studies appropriate at the fourth-grade level,

2. To develop tests to measure achieve-ment of these concepts,

3. To identify reference tests for measur-ing cognitive abilities, and

4. To study the relationship among learnedconcepts in these four subject matterfields and the identified cognitive abil-ities.

In the assessment of concept attainment,the learner may be asked to demonstrate hisattainment of a concept by performing a wide

..variety of tasks. The ability to perform one ormore tasks is usually taken as the criterial evi-

dence that a student does or does not under-stand a concept. Because of the nature of thisproject, it was necessary to have agreementon the nature of the tasks that would be em-ployed for making assessments about the levela attainment of the selected concepts. Inthis way this variable would be controlledamong the subject matter disciplines repre-sented in terms of the construction of instru-ments for measuring concept attainment. Theschema selected to fulfill this requirement wasdeveloped by Frayer, Fredrick, and Klaus-meier (1969). The "Schema for Testing theLevel of Concept Mastery" consists of 13types of questions, each of which purportedlygives an indication of some level of under-standing of a concept. Each tesk elicits adifferent type of performance from the examinee.There were 12 of these 13 kinds of questionsselected for use in the s'..udy.

2

1. Given the name of an attribute, selectan example of the attribute.

2. Given an example of an attribute, se-lect the name of the attribute.

3. Given the name of a concept, selectan example of the concept.

4. Given the name of a concept, selecta nonexample of the concept.

5. Given an example of a concept, se-lect the name of the concept.

.9

,7

6. Given the name of a concept, selectthe relevant attribute.

7. Given the name of a concept, selectthe irrelevant attribute.

8. Given the definition of a concept, se-lect the name of the concept.

9. Given the name of a concept, selectthe definition of the concept.

ti

10. Given the name of a concept, select'the supraordinate concept. 1

11. Given the name of a concept, selectthe subordinate concept.

12. Given the names of, two concepts,select the relationship between them.

From the nature of the tasks identified above,it is obvious that for the purposes of this studya multiple-choice format which requires anexaminee to select an answer was preferableto a testing format which requires an examineeto produce an answer. The schema, however,is sufficiently flexible to permit either of thesekinds of data gathering procedures to be util-ized.

It is thus the purpose of this technicalreport to provide a description of the test de-velopment effort for the science cohcepts tobe included in the study. It is a report ofone aspect of step two in the overall study.

i

II

. Procedures

Concept Selection

As indicated earlier, one of the basic pre-requisites to conducting this study was to haveall concepts be representative of a generalclass of concepts. The class of concepts cho-sen was identified as classificatory concepts,those which can be represented by a singleor a compound word. The second prerequisiteto identifying the concepts for inclusion inthe study was that they should measure thelevel of mastery of concepts commonly taughtin the elementary school at the intermediategrade levels. The third prerequisite to select-ing the concepts was that they should representmajor topical areas pertinent to the subject-matter discipline. Three organizational pat-terns for selecting topical areas were consid-ered. The one that lent itself most appropri-ately for use in this study was to group theconcepts into earth science, biological sci-ence, and physical science areas. A moredetailed description of the rationale and pro-cedures for selecting the concepts can befound in Working Paper No. 57 (Voelker, Soren-son, & Frayer, 1971).

The initial lists of concepts from each ofthe three topical areas are presented in Table 1.A total of 30 concepts was selected for inclu-sion in the study by randomly sampling 10concepts from each of the three topical areas.The 30 concepts for which tests of conceptattainment were developed are identified withan asterisk.

For each of these 30 concepts, a compre-hensive concept analysis was completed. Theframework for conducting the analysis can befound in Working Paper No. 16 (Frayer et al.,1069). The information produced by a conceptanalysis includes:

1. Relevant and irrelevant attributes ofthe concept,

2. Supraordinate, coordinate, and sub-ordinate concepts,

3. Critarial attributes of the concept,

4. A definition of the concept,

5. Examples and nonexamples of theconcept, and

6. Relationships between and amongthe concept and other concepts.

A detailed analysis of the 30 concepts includedin this study can be found in the appendix ofWorking Paper No. 57 (Voelker et al., 1971).

Test Development

The information provided by the conceptanalyses served ac the basis for constructingthe test items to be used in data collection.For each of the 30 concepts included in thestudy, a 1 2-item test was constructed, eachof the 13 itt.,'-s per test corresponding to oneof the tasks of the schema. This activity re-sulted is the production of 360 items. for usein assessing science concept attainment.

If one studies the tasks being used tomeasure understanding of a concept, it canreadily be seen that more than one item can begenerated for some of the tasks. For example,a Task 1 type item (given the name of an attri-bute, select an example of the aL'ribute) couldbe constructed to measure understanding ofeach of the relevant attributes of a concept.It was decided for this project to construct justone multiple-choice item for each task for eachconcept. This made it necessary to have basesfor making choices when such choices were nec-essary. These bases consisted of principlesfor selecting attributes, relationships, incor-

3

Table 1

List: of Science Concepts by Topical Area

BiologicalScience

EarthScience

Adaptation Air PressureAmphibian AtmosphereAnimal *Cloud

*Bird *CoreBrain Crust

*Cell *FossilEardrum *GlacierEnvironment Igneous rock

*Eish Magma*Heart Mantle

Hibernate Metamorphic rock*Invertebrate *Meteor*Lens - eye MeteoriteLigament Mineral

*Lungs *Moon*Mammal Orbit*Muscle *PlanetNervous system SeasonOptic nerve *Sedimentary rockPlant Solar system

*POre StarReptile SunRetina *VolcanoSense WeatherSkeleton *WindSurvivalVertebrateWater

PhysicalScUnco

BurningCondensation

*ConductorContractionDegreeDissolve

*Evaporation*ExpansionForce

*FrictionFuelGas

*LiquidMagnetMatter

*MeltingMolecular movement

*MoleculeNon-conductor

*Solid*SoundTemperature

*ThermometerWork

* Indicates that a test was developed and adrninistezed for this concept.

rect choices, etc. A discussion of such basescan be found in "A Structure of Concept Attain-ment Abilities: The Problem and Strategiesfor Attacking It" (Harris, Harris, Frayer, &Quilling, in press).

The initial draft of each item was pre-pared by a science education specialist andreviewed by the principal investigator for sci-ence. When agreement on the appropriatenessof the items was reached between these twoparties, the items were further reviewed by agroup of graduate students in science aduca-tion, each a specialist in biological science;earth science, and/or physical science. Theirsuggestions were considered in making furtherrevisions in the items. These revised itemswere then critiqued by a committee Composedof item writers from each of the fou subject

11

matter areas being studied (science, socillstudies, language arts, and mathematics), anexperienced elementary school teacher witha specialty in reading and a measurement spe-cialist. The final critique was conducted bythe principal investigator for science and ameasurement specialist. Major concerns inthe item construction process were readabilityof the items, validity, and reliability.

Readability

Each item was specifically constructedto minimize the chance that a student wouldbe unable to answer a question because ofhis inability to read the item. Care was taken

use se the simplest possible language and

still be scientifically accurate at the level ofa child in theintermediate grades. Some assis-tance in meeting this criterion of readabilitywas obtained from the analysis of the concepts.All attributes, examples, nonexamples, andthe concept definition were stated in termsthat a fifth-grade child could be expected toread and understand.

Pilot studies were conducted to determinewhether children of the respective age levelcould recognize the concept labels on thebasis of their ability to read the words aloudand explain whether they knew somethingabout the concepts. The evidence obtainedfrom this pilot study and the independent re-view of sample items by outside consultantsindicated that there would be little if any read-ing problem with the items, and that the con-cern for administering them in any way otherthan the.standard one in which the studentsread the items themselves was not justified.

Validity

The content validity of each of the itemswas of immediate concern during item construc-tion; aspects of construct validity were to beprobed later using duplicate test construction,simplex analyses, and factor analyses of theresults obtained using the content-valid itemsconstructed.

Content Validity

Each item was constructed to meet thecontent and task specifications set for it. Theschema adopted for use in measuring conceptattainment specified the nature of the task tobe performed by the student for a respectiveitem. The content for each item was specifiedas a result of the prior concept analysis. Itis recognized that the content specificationswere not as precise as the task specificationsbecause of the necessity of choosing a singleattribute to be tested and the necessity ofselecting incorrect alternatives for use in theconstruction of multiple-choice questions, forexample. However, systematic constructionof alternate choices was used whenever pos-sible.

To further insure the content validity ofthe items, two persons who were familiarwiththe schema for assessing concept attainmentbut who were not involved in the item develop-ment process classified five random sets of72 items, the items for six concepts in eachset, according to content and task. Concept'

analyses were available to these oersons atthat time. They were able to correctly classifyall but a few of the items. Any questions raisedby this process were mutually resolved with thesubject matter principal investigator, the mea-surement specialist, and the reviewer.

Reliability

Utilizing the schema' as the basis for pre-paring the 30-concept test provided a controlover the kinds of items constructed. This con-trol over the nature of the items resulted in a1 2 (tasks) by 30 (concepts) matrix consistingof a score for each of the 360 items. In addi-tion to a single test score based on the 360items, it is possible to obtain two other typesof test scores from a completely crossed de-sign of this nature. One alternative is tohave 30 concept test scores based on 12 itemtests. The other alternative is to have 1 2task type scores based on items selected foreach of the 30 concepts. The total score forall 360 items was rejected since it assumesthat neither task nor concept variation ispresent. Rather than make .a choice betweenthe other two alternatives, both. were done.(The theoretical problem of how to item analyzea completely crossed design of this variety re-mains to be solved.)

The major concern was that the reliabilityfor the concept test scores and the task testscores be sufficiently high to warrant furtherstudy using these data. It was recognizedthat there may be some contradiction in whatwas attempted. The items were constructedto comply with the completely crossed design,30 concepts by 12 tasks. One major objectiveof the project is to determine the dimensionalityof the selected science concepts. If either orboth of these were not unidimensional, then aninternal consistency reliability estimate basedupon items measuring aspects from the multi-dimensions would reflect this; the more dimen-sions present and the more uncorrelated theyare, the lower the internal consistency esti-mate. Recognizing this and not being able tostudy the dimensionality of the two modes (con-cepts and tasks) until after the items were de-veloped, pilot studies were conducted usingthe items for all the concepts for the 12 tasks.As will be pointed out later, evidence indicatesthat sufficiently reliable scores can be obtainedfor both task scores and concept scores.

Item Revision

A pilot study was conducted to gather data

. .

5

to be utilized in revision of the items and thetests prior to conducting the actual study. Atotal of five 72-item tests was administered toevery subject. Each test consisted of the 12items for six of the 30 concepts. Items wererandomly assigned to position on the tests tominimize a probable learning effect that mighthave taken place had the items been presenteain order on individual concept tests. (If onelooks at the ordering of the schema, it is ob-vious what is meant by the potential for thelearning effect when the items for individualconcepts are presented in sequence.)

The pilot study activities were conductedduring January, April, and May of 1970 in Sussexand Brookfield, Wisconsin. One of the five testinstruments was administered in Sussex and theremaining four test instruments were admin-istered to children in Brookfield. The Brook-field testing was divided into two periods dur-ing which two of the four instruments were ad-ministered. Approximately 100 students tookeach of the five concept tests. Data collectedfrom this pilot study were then utilized to re-vise the test items. However, the studentsin the Brookfield groups were predominantlyat the 90th percentile on the Iowa Tests ofBasic Skills (General).,which resulted in skewedresults on the tests. Therefore, compensationshad to be made when utilizing the results ofthe tests in revising the items. In addition toexamining the results on individual items, thereliabilities were computed for concept testsand task tests to be used in revising items.

The scores on the tests were subjectedto analysis by the Generalized Item AnalysisProgram (GITAP) (Baker, 1969). The outputfrom this program provides the Hoyt reliabilityand standard error of measurement for the totaltest scores, and in addition provides fourkindsof information about the individual test items:

1. The proportion responding to each pos-sible item response. The proportion ofstudents who respond correctly to anitem is an index of the difficulty levelof that item. The greater the value ofthis. difficulty index the easier the item.

2. The item-criterion biserial correlation.The biserial correlation coefficient isan index of the discriminating abilityof the item choice. For these analysesthe criterion ability used was total con-cept or total task score.

3. X50. X50 is the point on the criterionscale given in standard deviation unitscorresponding to the median of theitem

6

13

characteristic curve. It is the pointat which subjects with that score havea 50 -50 chance of choosing that re-sponse.

4. Beta. Beta is the reciprocal of thestandard deviation of the item charac-teristic curve at the X50 point. It isan index of the discrimination powerof the item.

As indicated earlier, there is no knownway to item analyze completely crossed datasuch as are produced in the design of thisstudy. Therefore, the items were analyzedas part of a concept test score and as partof a task test score. This raises questionsas to the interpretation of such results. Themain referents used for interpreting the resultsand as a basis for making item revisions werethe results obtained from the analyses of theconcept scores. The tasks were fixed, andthus any arbitrary decisions were made inregard to appropriate content for incorrectchoices, etc. The usual standards for itemindices were not strictly adhered to, as aunique design for item analysis was beingdealt with and a major object of the projectis to study the dimensionality of-the conceptsand of the tasks. If high discrimination in-dices were demanded, the dimensionality mayhave been affected by making the items morehomogeneous. Also, no attempt was made tomanipulate the difficulty level of the items,since another objective of the project is todetermine if any differential levels of diffi-culty or complexity exist in the concepts andin the tasks. Therefore, the item analysisresults were used as a very general guide tohelp in determining whether there were "hidden"weaknesses, clues, andjor incongruities inthe items and even in a more general senseto show that what we were attempting to dowas possiblesufficiently reliable conceptand task scores could be attained when usingthis completely crossed design.

The general criteria (guidelines) used initem revision were as follows:

1. Biserial r: A high positive biserial ris desired for a correct choice and ahigh negative biserial r is desired forthe incorrect choices. The generallevel of biserial r for the task scoreswas greater than or equal to .3 forthe correct choice and less than orequal to a -.3 for the incorrect choices.For the concept test scores the limit onthe biserial r was increased.

Table 2

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations onLorge - Thorndike Intelligence Test and Iowa Tests ofBasic Skills for Students in Population and Samples

Test Population Boys GirlsLorge-Thorndike

Intelligence

Iowa Basic SkillsN

106.6

2605

106.1114.82

161

112.2313.37

239

Vocabulary X 5.53 5.54 5.881.41 1.33

N 25 20 181 24 6

Reading 7 5.44 5.29 5.97Comprehension 1.51 1.35

N 25 20 181 247

Language X 5.24 5.04 5.82Skills 1.44 1.34

N 25 20 181 248

Work-Study . X 5.46 5.41 5.86Skills 1.30 1.18

N 25 20 181 248

Arithmetic X 5.05 5.08 5.35Skills .96 1.00

N 25 20 181 247

Composite 5.35 5.27 5.771.17 1.11

N 25 20 181 245

2. Beta: A high positive beta is desiredfor the correct item choice and highnegative betas are desired for the in-correct item choices. When beta isequal to zero

a.' no one took the item choice,

b. the biserial r is greater than orequal to 1.00, and beta cannotbe computed but can be interpretedas approaching infinity (this is apeculiarity of the GITAP program),and

c. beta is really zero and does notdiscriminate.

The revised items can be found in WorkingPaper No. 58, "Items for Measuring thelevelof Attainment of Selected Classificatory SO-

ence Concepts by Intermediate Grade Children"(Voelker & Sorenson, 1971).

Subjects

The revised items were administered toa group of beginning sixth-grade children inMadison, Wisconsin, during the fall of 1970.The population consisted of all beginningsixth graders attending Madison public schools.A sufficient number of students was randomlyselected and invited to participate in the studyto result in approximately 200 boys and 200girls taking the revised tests. The actual num-ber of students who completed the test and forwhich test results were usable was 259 girlsand 186 boys. Each student who participatedin the study was paid a fee.

Data from the Lorge - Thorndike IntelligenceTest and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills for the

4

7

Table 3

Distribution of Fathers' Occupations for Students in the Samples

Girls Boys

00. Accountant 4 701. Architect 3 '202. Dentist 3 1

03. Engineer 10 704. Lawyer, Judge 6 . 205. Clergyman 306. Doctor 12 307. Nurse08. Teacher, Professor 20 1509. Other Professional 26 1511. Farmer -- --21. Owner of Business 4 222. Manager, Official 28 1331. Bookkeeper32. Receptionist 1 --39. Other Clerical 6 449. Salesman 27 2451. Craftsman, Skilled Worker 39 2252. Foreman 253. Armed Services - Officer 1

54. Armed Services - Enlisted 1

61. Truck Driver 5 462. Operative in Factory 16 1169. Other Operative 12_ 1271. Fireman 2 272. Policeman 2 473. Other Protective Service 3 --74. Practical Nurse, Nurse's Aide 1 1

75. Private Household Worker -- --79. Other Service Workers 14 1681. Non-farm Laborer 3 282. Farm Laborer 1 --91. Not presently in labor force 6 699. Not ascertained 12 10

boys and girls who participated in the study aswell as for the population from which they weredrawn are presented in Table 2. In addition todata on the individual subjects themselves,data regarding the nature of their fathers' occu-pations are presented in Table 3.

Test Administration

The testing program was carried =fin two .

situations. Since a large percentage of thesixth grade students in the Madison publicschools attend one of three middle schools,

8

it was decided to test the selected studentsfrom these schools in their own buildings afterschool hours. The remaining students whodid not attend one of these three schools weretested in three consecutive Saturday morningsessions at centrally-located Madison schools.The test instruments were administered in2 1/2-hour testing sessions. During a giventest session. each student received a sciencetest consisting of 72 items which took approx-imately 1 hour to complete and a similar testfrom another subject matter area. There wasapproximately a 1/2-hour break between takingthe science test and the second test.

15

Data Analysis

The data obtained from the administrationof the tests according to the previously de-,izcrlbed procedures produced two types of infor-mation for both the boys and the girlsseparateanalyses for boys and girls were conductedthroughout. For each of the 30 concept tests

and the 12 task tests a reliability estimate wascomputed, and an item analysts was conductedfor each of the 360 items. Each item was ana-lyzed as part of two test scores, the concepttest score and the task test score. Total testscore information and the individual item datawere examined in detail according to the pro-cedures described on page 6-7.

169/1D

7.

111Results and Discussion

The test data from the administration ofthe revised items to a group of beginning sixth-grade students as previously described weresubjected to analysis with the GITAP program.In keeping with the design of the study sep-arate analyses were performed for the boysand the girls. Tables 4 and 5 present themeans, standard deviations, and Hoyt reliabil-ities for the concept test scores and the tasktest scores. All concept test scores are basedon 12 items, while the task test scores arebased on the analysis of 30 items.

Means

Tests of Concept Attainment

The mean scores attained by the boys onthe 30 tests of concept attainment ranged from6.62 to 9.61 out of a possible attainable scoreof 12.00 (Table 4). For the tests in both thebiological and the physical science areas, thedifference between lowest and highest meanscores was approximately two points, whereasin the earth science area, there was less thana 1-point difference between the lowest andthe highest mean score. Overall, the highestmean scores were obtained in the biologicalscience area and the lowest mean scores inthe physical science area.

The range of mean scores for the girls onthey 30 concept attainment tests was in excessof 4 points, from 6.04 to 10.44. The patternof mean scores for the concept tests withinthe specific science areas was similar to thatobserved for the boys. The greatest differencesbetween the lowest and hlnhest mean scoresoccurred in the biological and physical scienceareas. Also, the highest means were obtainedfor concept tests in the biological sciencearea and the lowest means were obtained for*the concept tests in the physical science area.

The girls attained a higher mean score thanthe boys on 25 of the 30 concept tests. Thisoverall pattern of mean scores for girls beinggreater than that for boys was also noted ineach of the three specific science areas; girlshad higher mean scores on eight or more of theconcept tests in each of the areas. (Note atthis point that no consideration has been givento differences in test reliabilities for the boysand the girls. Note also that the tests haveonly 12 items.)

An examination of Table 4 reveals the fol-lowing:

1. For both the boys and the girls the con-cepts for which the highest mean scoreswere attained were Mammal and Fish,both from the biological science area.The four concept tests on which thesubjects earned the lowest scores werealso identical for both the girls andthe boys: Invertebrate, Cell, Molecule,and Conductor.

2. The ten concept tests with highest rankedmean scores included nine of the sameconcepts for the girls and the boys.Five of these concepts were from thebiological science area and three fromthe earth science area. Eight of theten concept tests with the lowest rankedmean scores were the same for the girlsand the boys. Four were from the physi-cal science area and three from the bio-logical science area.

There was a difference of four to eight posi-tions in the rank order of the mean scores onseven of the 30 concept attainment tests. The

-meah test scores for bays were at a higher rankorder for five of these seven. There was onebiological science concept in this group ofranked differences, the mean score for girls

117

11

Table 4Means, Standard Deviations, and Hoyt Reliabilities for

Tests of Concept Attainment-Science

ConceptMean

StandardDeviation Hoyt Reliability

Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls1. Bird 8.88 9.43 2.20 1.88 .62 .552. Cell 7.33 7.29 2.50 2.28 .61 .543. Fish 9.42 10.08 2.30 1.86 .71 .654. Heart (Human) 8.79 9.36 2.63 2.39 .74 .725. Invertebrate 7.40 7.42 2.79 2.63 .73 .696. Lens (Eye) 7.87 8.08 :1.47 2.19 .68 .607. Lungs 8.95 9.45 2.82 2.61 .79 .788. Mammal 9.61 10.44 2.48 2.11 .76 .769. Muscle 8.07 7.99 2.52 2.69 .67 .70

10. Pore (Skin) 8.26 8.85 2.68 2.73 .72 .7711. Cloud 8.22 8.67 2.58 2.03 .72 .5812. Core (Earth) 8.68 8.99 2.66 2.22 .75 .6613. Fossil 8.81 9.36 2.46 2.08 .70 .6214. Glacier 8.32 8.69 2.48 2.41 .66 .6715. Meteor 7.65 0.67 2.76 2.43 .72 .641 6. Moon 8.57 8.34 2.76 2.85 .76 .7817. Planet 8.32 8.67 2.43 2.36 .68 .6818. Sedimentary Rock 7.91 8.75 2.68 2.50 .71 .7219. Volcano 8.78 9.27 2.33 2.08 .65 .6020. Wind 8.76 9.56 2.56 2.19 .71 .6721. Conductor 6.62 6.04 2.73 2.60 .68 .6622. Evaporation 7.99 8.29 2.71 2.53 .71 .6723. Expansion 7.51 7.80 2.74 2.77 .71 .7324. Friction 7.69 7.49 2.35 2.16 .62 .5225. Liquid 8.89 9.22 2.35 2.29 .67 .6826. Melting 7.75 8.37 2.40 2.16 .65 .6227. Molecule 6.62 6.99 2.48 2.33 .60 .5628. Solid 8.58 9.56 2.76 2.21 .77 .6929. Sound 8.16 8.54 2.49 2.27 .69 .6630. Thermometer 8.34 8.68 2.54 2.07 .71 .57

receiving the higher rank. In both the physicalscience and the earth science areas, there werethree concepts with wide differences in the rankorders of the mean scores. Mean test scoresfor the boys received the higher rank order forall three- physical science concepts and two ofthe three earth science concepts.

Tests of Task Attainment

Data were also analyzed in twins 'of themean scores earned for each of the 12 tasksacross the 30 concepts (Table 5). Each of the

12

30 concept tests consisted of 12 items. Thegirls attained higher mean scores than the boys

:on each of the 12 task attainment tests. Forboth the boys and the girls the first five tasksfrom the schema referred to previously (page 2)received the highest five ranks. They didnot progress from one to five but the meanscores varied only slightly. For the boysit is of note that the rank orders of themean scores for Tasks 6 and 7, selection ofrelevant and irrelevant attributes, were 10 and12, respectively. Ranks of the other meansappear to follow the general progression ofthe schema. For the girls it is of note that

Table 5Means, Standard Deviations, and Hoyt Reliabilities for

Tests of Task Attainment-Science

TaskNumbera Boys

MeanStandard

Deviation Hoyt ReliabilityGirls Boys Girls Boys Girls

1 23.17 24.54 5.14 4.51 .84 .832 22.22 23.44 5.74 4.80 .87 .843 23.50 24.11 4.46 3.60 .80 .724 23.34 23.65 4.21 3.38 .76 .66

22.95 23.57 5.36 4.30 .85 .786 18.76 20.18 6.10 5.61 .B5 .837 16.76 18.05 6.30 5.74 .85 .838 20.17 21.37 6.81 5.76 .89 .859 19.06 20.26 6.48 5.99 .87 .86

10 20.67 21.04 6.50 5.94 .88 .8711 18.82 19.49 5.66 4.81 .33 .7712 17.32 17.63 5.90 5.52 .83 .81

al. Given name of attribute, select example of attribute.2. Given example of attribute, select name of attribute.3. Given name of concept, select example of concept.4. Given name of concept, select nonexample of concept.5. Given example of concept, select name of concept.6. Given name of concept, select relevant attribute.7. Given name of concept, select irrelevant attribute.8. Given definition of concept, select name of concept.9. Given name of concept, select definition of concept.

10. Given name of concept, select supraordinate concept.11. Given name of concept, select subordinate concept.12. Given names of two concepts, select principle relating them.

the rank order of the mean score on Task 7was11. All else seems to follow the general orderof the schema.

Standard Deviations

The standard deviations for the tests ofconcept attainment were greater for the boysthan for the girls on 26 of the 30 concept tests.In the biological science area, the standarddeviations for boys were greater than thosefor g!rls on eight of the ten tests, and in boththe earth science and the physical scienceareas, the standard deviations for boys weregreater than those for girls on nine of the tentests. The standard deviations on the tasktest scores were greater for the boys in all 12instances.

Reliabi lines

Hoyt reliabilities on the tests of conceptattainment for the boys were greater than orequal to those for the girls on 23 of the 30tests. In the earth science area, the testreliabilities for boys were greater than orequal to those for the girls on seven :)f theten tests. In the biological and physical sci-ence areas, the test reliabilities for boys weregreater than or equal to those for the girls oneight of the ten tests. On the task tests thereliabilities for the boys were greater thanthose for the girls in every instance, thelargest difference in reliabilities being 0.10.

Item Indices

The item indices for the 360 items pre-

13

pared for use in this study (12 tasks, 30 con-cepts) are presented in Table 6. Again, theanalyses for the boys and the girls are pre-sented separately, and the information pro-vided for each item includes the proportioncorrect, the biserial correlation, the X50,and beta. Except for the proportion correctwhich is the same whether the item was partof the concept test score or the task test score,the item indices information is presented forthe way in which the item performed as partof the concept test score or as part of the tasktest score. (The actual performances requiredby the respective tasks are listed at the bottom.of Table 5.) Note that the item indices for therespective items are presented for the correctchoice only. If one wishes to identify thespecific concept and/or task for which dataare presented, it is necessary to refer backto Tables 4 and 5. For example, Concept No.2 as indicated in Table 6 would be Cell and the1-12 tasks as indicated in Column 2 of Table6 are for that respective concept. The thirdcolumn in Table 6 in which the items are num-bered consecutively from 1 to 360 is simplyan ordering device and does not present anyadditional information regarding item indiceson concept test scores or task test scores.

Item Difficulty

As indicated earlier in this paper, themean scores on the tests indicated that thetests were more difficult for the boys thanthey were for the girls. This was evidencedby the fact that the girls attained higher meanscores on 26 of the 30 concept tests. Usually,however, it is not good practice to judge thedifficulty of a test and its respective items onthe basis of mean scores. More precise mea-sures of item difficulty can be obtained'fromdata regarding the proportion of items correctand the Xs°.

As can be seen from Table 6, the girlsattained a higher proportion of correct responseson a majority of the test items. On 22 of the30 concept attainment tests, the girls had thehighest proportion correct on more than 50% ofthe items, and on 16 of the 30 tests the pro-portion correct for the girls was higher thanfor boys on over two-thirds of the items.

The proportion correct as a means of judg-ing item difficulty gives a more precise indi-cation of item difficulty than a mean test scorebut is not as precise as the X50. Further, theproportion correct does not give a good mea-sure of the way in which an item is performingin reference to a criterion score. For instance,

14

in this study, the proportion correct remainsthe same for both the criterion scores used,namely the concept attainment score and thetask attainment score. The index tells howmany students responded to the correct answerfor an item but it says nothing about their abil-ity level as measured by the specific criterionscore.

A more precise measure of item difficultythan either the mean scores or proportion r:nr-rect is the item difficulty index X50. Thisdifficulty index gives in standard deviationunits the criterion score at which a subjectwould have a 50-50 chance of getting theitem correct. For example, an X50 value of1.50 for an item indicates that subjects witha criterion score 1.50 standard deviation unitsabove the mean have a 50% chance of answer-ing that item correctly. Subjects with a cri-terion score higher than this would have agreater chance of answering that item correctlyand subjects with a criterion score lower thanthis would have a lesser chance. Likewise,an X50 value of -1.50 indicates that subjectswith a criterion score 1.50 standard deviationunits below the mean would have a 50% chanceof getting that item correct. For a higher scorethe chance would be greater and for a lowerscore the chance would be less. Kncwledgeof both the X50 and the beta for a specificitem permits one to easily determine theprobability of answering an item correctlyfor any point on a criterion scale (Baker, 1964).It may be pointed out that when p = .50, X50 =.00; when p is greater than .50 then X50 willbe negative; and for a certain p the higher thebeta value the closer to zero will be the X50value.

On the basis of the X50 scores for theitems on the tests of concept attainment andtask attainment, there is further support forthe fact that the test items were more difficultfor the boys than they were for the girls. TheX50 values favored the girls on 248 of the 360items when the concept score was the c_riterionscore and on 239 of the items when the taskscore was the criterion score. Of note is thatfor 215 of these items the X50 item indicesfavor the girls on both the concept test scoreand the task test score.

Further information about the appropriate-ness of an item and its respective distractorscan be obtained from an examination of thebiserial correlation and beta. These indicesare quite closely related since beta is com-puted.as a function of the biserial correlation(Baker, 1969). However, the relationship isnotlinear. From .00 to about .30 (absolute)they are very nearly the same. Beyond this(Continued on page 26)

. 20

$

Tab

le 6

Item

Ind

ices

Bas

ed o

n C

once

pt a

nd T

ask

Cri

teri

on S

core

s-Sc

ienc

e

Con

cept

Tas

kIt

em

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Correlation

Boys

Con

cept

X50

Girls

Con

cept

Tas

kBoys

Con

cept

Beta

Tas

kB

oys

Gir

lsBoys

Con

cept

Tas

kGirls

Con

cept

Tas

kT

ask

Tas

kG

irls

Con

cept

11

L91

98

.64

.54

.20

.14

-2.14

-2.54

-11.00

-15.91

.83

.64

.20

.14

22

89

94

.88

.90

.62

.75

-1.41

-1.38

-2.48

-2.06

1.84

2.03

.79

1.12

33

91

90

.67

.55

.76

.53

-2.00

-2.41

-1.70

-2.45

.90

.67

1.19

.63

44

82

83

.52

.48

.63

.43

-1.73

-1.80

-1.54

-2.27

.61

.55

.81

.47

55

82

91

.78

.60

.42

.51

-1.16

-1.51

-3.12

-2.58

1.25

.75

.47

.60

66

75

79

.48

.53

.51

.55

-1.42

-1.30

-1.60

-1.48

.55

.62

.59

.65

77

61

70

.82

.76

.74

.59

-.35

-.38

-.70

-.88

1.42

1.17

1.12

.74

88

70

79

.60

.37

.59

.50

-.90

-1.47

-1.37

-1.62

.74

.39

.74

.58

99

46

47

.52

.42

.57

.42

.18

.23

.11

.15

.61

,.46

.70

.47

...

10

10

61

58

.48

.49

.58

.44

-.56

-.56

-.36

-.48

.55

.56

.71

.49

11

11

84

89

.74

.68

.78

.72

-1.33

-1.46

-1.58

-1.72

1.11

.92

1.27

1.04

12

12

55

63

.57

.42

.68

.51

-.21

-.29

-.49

-.65

.70

.46

.93

.59

21

13

48

48

.22

.03

.36

.20

.18

1.23

.15

.26

.23

.03

.39

.21

214

61

69

.63

.71

.68

.70

-.45

-.40

-.72

-.69

.82

1.02

.93

.99

315

82

87

.62

.67

.56

.46

-1.50

-1.39

-1.99

-2.42

.79

.89

.68

.52

416

61

42

.60

.50

.48

.26

-.48

-.57

.40

.74

.75

.58

.54

.27

5"17

65

72

.71

.55

.53

.57

-.52

-.68

-1.10

-1.03

1.02

.66

.63

.70

618

77

76

.66

.52

.62

.54

-1.11

-1.41

-1.14

-1.32

.89

.61

.79

.64

719

60

72

.55

.55

.69

.60

-.47

-.47

-.84

-.96

.65

.65

.96

.76

820

46

39

.53

.36

.34

.21

.18

.26

.86

1.41

:62

.39

.36

.21

921

54

53

.55

.31

.46

.29

-.17

-.31

-.18

-.28

.66

.33

.52

.30.

10

22

57

58

.60

.63

.63

.58

-.29

-.28

-.32

-.35

.74

.81

.82

.70

11

231

56

47

.61

.45

.52

.42

-.27

-.36

.14

.17

.77

.50

.62

.46

12

24

65

66

.50

.51

.55

.51

-.74

-.72

-.73

-.79

.58

.60

.67

.59

31

25

89

92

.81

.77

.47

.60

-1.53

-1.62

-3.04

-2.36

1.39

1.19

.53

.75

226

87

94

.90

.83

.94

.81

-1.26

-1.36

-1.63

-1.91

2.06

1.50

2.61

1.36

327

90

97

.80

.75

.83

1.02

-1.63

-1.73

-2.19

.00

1.32

1.14

1.49

.00

428

94

97

.77

.42

.86

.73

-2.04

-3.70

-2.12

-2.50

1.19

.47

1.67

1.06

529

90

97

.81

.68

.88

.82

-1.58

-1.91

-2.12

-2.28

1.46

.93

1.88

1.43

630

65

82

.78

.71

.92

.81

-.50

-.54

-1.01

-1.14

1.24

1.02

2.28

1.39

731

80

88

.72

.70

.82

.60

-1.14

-1.19

-1.45

-2.00

1.05

.97

1.46

.75

832

72

75

.71

.61

.71

.45

-.83

-.95

-.96

-1.51

1.00

.78

1.01

.51

933

73

78

.45

.43

.54

.57

-1.33

-1.38

-1.40

-1.33

.51

.48

.64

.69

rn

NDND

51

49

81

71

.49

.53

.69

.38

-1.77

-1.63

-.82.

-1.48

.56

.63

250

85

84

.55

.47

.52

.29

-1.89

-2.21

-1.93

-3.45

.65

.53

351

43

40

.72

.42

.44

.25

.24

.42

.59

1.03

1.04

.47

452

46

47

.68

.50

.62

.41

.16

.21

.13

.20

.92

.58

553

72

70

.73

.66

.66

.42

-.80

-.88

-.81

-1.26

1.08

.89

654

62

70

.85

.65

.73

.62

-.36

-.47

-.73

-.86

1.59

.85

755

65

75

.60

.53

.62

.60

-.64

-.73

-1.06

-1.10

.76

.62

856

66

67

.73

.75

.66

.59

-.57

-.56

-.67

-.75

1.06

1.12

957

59

59

.67

-.21

.72

.61

-.33

-3.44

-.33

-.40

.90

-.21

10

58

72

73

.73

.83

.62

.79

-.78

-.68

-1.00

-.79

1.06

1.51

11

59

60

59

.67

.50

.67

.39

-.38

-.52

-.33

-.57

.91

.57

12

60

31

26

.38

.10

.53

.41

1.32

4.88

1.19

1.54

.42

.10

Tab

le 6

(C

ontin

ued)

Prop

ortio

nC

orre

ctB

iser

ial C

orre

latio

nB

oys

Gir

lsB

oys

Con

cept

Tas

k It

em B

oys

Gir

lsC

once

pt T

ask

Con

cept

Tas

k C

once

ptT

ask

x50

Beta

Girls

Boys

Girls

.

Concept

Task

Concept Task

Concept Task

310

34

52

48

.65

.61

.62

.51

-.06

-.07

.07

.09

.85

.76

.79

.59

11

35

77

84

.58

-.23

.83

.55

-1.26

-7.79

-1.18

-1.79

.72

-.23

1.50

.66

12

36

73

77

.81

.70

.80

.65

-.76

-.89

-.92

-1.13

1.36

.97

1.32

.85

41

37

73

72

-.82

.78

.69

.55

-.75

-.79

-.85

x-1.08

1.43

1.24

.96

.65

238

58

66

.65

.61

.65

.60

-.29

-.31

-.64

-.69

.86

.78

.86

.74

339

84

89

.60

.59

.62

.59

-1.69

401

-1.95

-2.05

.74

.73

.80

.74

440

91

90

.49

.51

.61

.50

-2.72

-2.59

-2.12

-2.62

.56

.60

.78

.57

541

72

81

.70

.64

.69

.49

-.83

-.91

-1.25

-1.78

.98

.83

.97

.56

.6

42

72

75

.63

.58

.81

.66

-.92

-1.02

-.81

-.99

.82

.70

1.40

.89

743

72

79

.73

.6...

.73

.60

-.80

-.93

-1.10

-1.34

1.06

.81

1.06

.75

.8

44

80

84

.89

.83

.83

.83

-.95

-1.02

-1.19

-1.19

1.92

1.50

1.48

1.48

945

80

86

.67

.63

.81

.68

-1.15

-1.23

-1.35

-1.62

.90

.81

1.40

.93

10

46

73

89

.83

.80

.81

.67

-.74

-.77

-1.53

-1.84

1.50

1.34

1.38

.91

'11

47

74

72

.71

.74

.83

.66

-.91'

-.88

-.70

-.88

1.02

1.10

1.48

.87

12

48

52

53

.56

.43

.53

.49

-.07

-.09

-.14

-.15

.68

.48

.63

.56

.96

.41

.61

.30

.49

.26

. 79

.45

.88

.47

1.07

.79

.79

.75

.88

.74

1.04

.76

. 79

1.30

. 91

.42

.63

.45

61

61

91

96

.46

.52

.79

.84

-2.89

-2.56

-2.22

-2.10

.52

.61

1.31

1.57

262

84

87

.69

.90

.55

.56

-1.44

-1.10

-2.06

-2.03

.95

2.08

.66

.68

363

89

89

.55

.56

.61

.65

-2.27

-2.21

-2.03

-1.91

.65

.68

.77

.85

464

64

67

.71

.69

.62

.30

-.51

-.52

-.72

-1.51

1.00

.94

.78

.31

565

67

62

.75

.65

.74

.42

-.57

-.66

-.40

-.71

1.15

.86

1.11

.46

666

66

63

.55

.41

.55

.53

-.75

-1.01

-.62

-.65

.66

.45

.66

.62

767

34

37

.39

.30

.55

.43

1.06

1.37

.60

.77

.43

.3.2

.66

.48

... V

Table 6

(Continued)

Concept Task Item

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Correlation

Task

Boys

Concept

X50

Girls

Concept

Task

Boys

Concept

Beta

Task

Boys Girls

Boys

Concept Task

Girls

Concept

Task

Task

Girls

Concept

68

68

46

53

.74

.57

.72

.56

.13

.17

-.09

-.11

1.10

.70

1.05

.68

969

49

49

.72

.49

,69

.43

.02

.03

.02

.03

1.04

.56

.95

.47.

10

70

85

93

.75

.79

.69

.82

-1.38

-1.31

-2.14

-1.80

1.13

1.30

.96

1.44

11

71

69

75

.72

.76

.57

.56

-.68

-.64

-1.19

-1.22

1.05

1.17

.70

.68

12

72

43

36

.54

.33

.36

.31

.33

.53

1.03

1.19

.64

.35

.38

.33

71

73

83

81

.75

.58

.84

.76

-1.29

1..66

-1.07

-1.18

1.14

.72

1.54

1.15

274

80

82

.90

.89

.92

.85

-.94

-.95

-1.01

-1.09

2.10

1.98

2.32

1.58

375

83

91

.75

.79

.69

.63

-1.29

-1.22

-1.91

-2.10

1.14

1.30

.96

.81

476

83

85

.56

.69

.75

.72

-1.70

-1.37

-1.40

-1.46

.67

.95

1.14

1.04

577

83

90

.59

.58

.72

.73

-1.64

-1.66

-1.75

-1.73

.73

.72

1.04

1.06

678

58

67

.72

.57

.50

.49

-.28

-.36

-.90

-.91

1.04

.69

.57

.56

779

70

66

.72

.65

.72

.66

-.73

-.81

-.56

-.61

1.03

.85

1.05

.87

880

66

75

.85

.79

.89

:79

-.47

-.51

-.76

-.85

1.60

1.28

1.92

1.31

'9

81

67

73

.78

.72

.93

.86

-.57

-.62

-.65

-.70

1.25

1.03

2.46

1.71

10

82

78

83

.84

.81

.88

.74

-.94

-.98

-1.08

-1.30

1.52

1.37

1'.86

1.09

11

83

74

77

.84

.77

.85

.73

-.77

-.85

-.87

-1.02

1.56

1.20

1.64

1.08

12

84

68

75

.68

.57

.64

.61

-.70

-.84

-1.05

-1.10

.93

.69

.84

.77

81

85

90

93

.53

.72

.61

.El

-2.40

-1.76

-2.48

-2.47

.62

-1.05

.77

.77

286

87

94

.79

.65

.88

.91

-1.43

-1.73

-1.79

-1.73

1.29

.87

1.84

2.15

387

80

85

.80

.63

.98

.71

-1.04

-1.31

-1.07

-1.49

1.32

-.45

4.74

1.00

488

81

93

.82

.55

.99

.55

-1.05

-1.58

-1.50

-2.67

1.44

.66

6.10

.67

589

84

90

.86

.70

.95

.64

-1.18

-1.45

-1.34

-2.01

1.67

.98

3.10

.83

690

69

81

.71

.61

.83

.64

-.71

-.83

-1.08

-1.40

1.00

.76

1.49

.83

791

68

79

.81

.67

.82

.70

-.57

-.68

-.97

-1.15

1.37

.91

1.44

.97

892

84

92

.86

.72

.94

.81

-1.18

-1.40

-1.48

-1.73

1.67

1.04

2.81

1.37

993

82

84

.86

.59

.73

.48

-1,06

-1.54

-1.36

-2.04

1.66

.72

1.06

-.68

10

94

84

84

.75

.54

.82

.76

-1.35

-1.88

-1.21

-1.30

1.13

.64

1.42

1.17

11

95

70

82

.75

.58

.94

.60

-.69

-.90

-.97

-1.52

1.15

.71

2.64

.75

12

96

82

86

.51

.47

.75

.67

-1.76

-1.94

-1.44

-1.62

.60

.53

1.14

.90

91

97

61

67

.57

.50

.68

.53

-.50

-.58

-.66

-.85

.69

.57

.92

.62

298

70

70

.75

.68

.73

.64

-.70

-.77

-.73

-.83

1.13

.93

1.0E

.84

399

85

77

.61

.62

.72

.63

-1.69

-1.67

-1.04

-1.19

.77

.79

1.02

.80

4100

72

69

.31

.22

.62

.44

-1.82

-2.54

-.80

-1.14

.33

.23

.80

.49

5101

87

75

.52

.51

.57

.36

-2.16

-2.22

-1.16

-1.82

.62

.59

.69

.39

Table 6 (Continued)

Concept Task Item

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Correlation

Boys

Concept

X50

Task

Boys

Concept

Beta

Task

Boys Girls

Boys

Concept Task

Girls

Concept Task

Task

Girls

Concept

Task

Girls

Concept

96

102

55

58

.54

.50

.57

.54

-.22

-.24

-.37

-.39

.65

.58

.70

.64

7103

44

49

.54

.51

.58

.55

.30

.32

.06

.06

.65

.59

.70

.65

8104

73

73

.74

.75

.65

.55

-.79

.78

-.96

-1.13

1.10

1.14

.85

.66

9105

61

60

.79

.75

.71

.66

-,36

-.38

-.37

-.40

1.30

1.14

1.00

.87

10

106

81

80

.66

.67

.63

.67

-1.34

-1.33

-1.34

-1.25

.88

.89

.80

.90

11

107

55

55

.74

.51

.60

.5ff

-.16

-1.70

-.20

-.24

1.09

-.59

.75

.58

12

108

65

65

.57

.56

.56

.49

-.65

-.66

-.70

-.81

70

'

.68

.69

.56

10

1109

85

88

.64

.68

.80

-.66

-1.62

-1.52

-1.49

-2.56

.83

.92

1.34

-.87

2110

89

85

.42

.38

.56

.57

-2.98

-3.25

-1.82

-1.77

.46

.41

.67

.70

3ll

65

71

.74

.48

.69

.48

-.51

-.78

-.78

-1.13

1.09

.55

.96

.55

4112

77

81

.67

.58

.69

.51

-1.10

-1.27

-1.30

-1.77

.90

.71

.95

.59

5113

63

64

.64

.60

.70

.63

-.52

-.55

-.50

-.56

.83

.74

.98

.80

6114

53

63

.57

.43

.61

.48

-.14

-.19

-.56

-. 71

.70

.47

.77

.55

7115

57

57

.33

.41

.55

.44

-.53

-.43

-.31

-.39

.35

.44

.65

.48

8116

73

85

.76

.77

.96

.96

-.79

-.78

-1.08

-1.08

1.18

1.19

3.32

3.51

9117

81

80

.82

.74

.87

.83

-1.05

-1.17

-.98

-1.01

1.45

.1.04

1.76

1.53

10

118

65

76

.84

.67

.81

.70

-.44

-.56

-.89

-1.02

1.57

.90

1.37

.99

11

119

60

67

.76

.71

.73

.76

-.32

-.35

-.60

-.57

1.16

1.00

1.06

1.16

12

120

60

67

.71

.65

.88

.75

-.37

-.40

-.51

-.59

.99

.85

1.83

1.14

11

1121

76

83

.65

.57

.52

.49

-1.11

-1.25

-1.85

-1.95

.85

.70

.60

.56

2122

35

24

.30

.19

.37

.21

1.26

1.93

1.92

3.40

.31

.20

.40

.21

3123

87

92

.68

.84

.64

.69

-1.67

-1.34

-2.24

-2.06

.92

1.56

.82

.P6

4124

87

93

.79

.82

.78

.67

-1.44

-1.38

-1.94

-2.24

1.27

1.42

1.25

.91

5125

91

97

.53

.64

.74

.59

-2.52

-2.05

-2.44

-3.10

.62

.85

1.11

.72

6126

48

63

.72

.50

.57

.37

.08

.11

-.59

-.92

1.03

.57

.70

.40

7127

56

53

.70

.62

.62

.62

-.23

-.26

-.12

-.12

.99

.79

.78

.80

8128

65

80

.73

.72

.79

.79

-.53

-.54

-1.06

-1.07

1.06

1.04

1.30

1.27

9129

71

77

.77

.76

.78

.72

-.72

-.73

-.95

-1.04

1.19

1.17

1.26

1.04

10

130

62

60

.79

.72

.72

.65

-.40

-.43

-.35

-.38

1.30

1.05

1.03

.85

11

131

83

86

.80

.77

.44

.52

-1.21

-1.26

-2.50

-2.13

1.33

.20

.49

.60

12

132

59

58

.72

.61

.49

-.32

-.30

-.35

-.43

.92

1.05

.76

.56

12

1133

89

93

.73

.75

.77

.81

-1.70

-1.64

-1.93

-1.82

1.06

1.15

1.19

1.40

2134

80

84

.69

.64

.69

.72

-1.20

-1.30

-1.46

-1.39

.96

.83

.95

1.04

3i35

84

91

.89

.79

.70

.61

-1.13

-1.28

-1.89

-2.19

2.00

1.28

.98

.76

Tag le16 (Continued)

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Clrrelation

X50

Beta

Boys

Boys

Boys

Girls

Girls

Girls

Concept Task Item Boys Girls

Concept Task

Concept Task

Concept

Task

Concept

Task

Concept Task

Concept Task

12

4136

84

87.

.85

.69

.65

.59

-1.17

-1.43

-1.72

-1.91

1.59

.96

.86

.72

5137

84

91

.78

.61

.70

.65

-1.30

-1.67

-1.89

-2.04

1.23

.76

.98

.85

6138

54

51

.66

.57

.64

.47

-.16

-.19

-.04

-.05

.88

.69

.83

.53

7139

48

44

.58

.40

.59

.42

.09

.13

.24

.34

.72

.44

.73

.46

8140

84

81

.81

.80

.71

.68

-1.22

1.23

-1.17

-1.28

1.40

1.35

1.10

.92

9141

68

76

.73

.57

.79

.61

-.63

-.81

-.91

-1.18

1.07

.69

1.28

.77

10

142

58

49

.63

.48

.59

.45

-.30

-.3'9

.02

.03

.82

.55

.76

.50

11

143

62

76

.72

.72

.63

.61

-.44

-.44

-1.14

-1.18

1.03

1.03

.81

.77

12

144

73

75

.68

.55

.64

.59

-.88

-1.09

-1.06

-1.15

.94

.66

.82

.72

13

1145

85

86

.68

.71

.63

.60

-1.56

-1.48

-1.76

-1.84

.92

1.02

.80

.75

2146

83

90

.62

.56

.65

.82

-1.51

-1.70

-1.93

-1.54

.80

.67

.86

1,42

'

3147

48

50

.29

.20

.25

.01

.19

.28

.02

.59

.30

.20

.25

.01

4148

90

92

.58

.56

.51

.42

-2.24

-2.31

-2.73

-3.36

.71

.68

.59

.46

5149

83

90

.88

.88

.77

.58

-1.07

-1.08

-1.66

-2.22

1.87

1.85

1.20

.70

6150

74

75

.65

.55

.72

.55

-.98

-1.15

-.91

-1.20

.85

.66

1.05

.65

7151

54

54

.56

.44

.54

.51

-.17

-.22

-.19

-.20

.68

.48

.65

.59

8152

70

81

.80

.77

.77

.78

-.67

-.70

-1.15

-1.14

1.33

1.20

1.20

1.23

ND

9153

72

83

.79

.87

.96

.95

-.72

-.65

-.98

-.99

1.29

1.79

3.42

3.00

C.71

10

154

80

80

.82

-.49

.88

.74

-1.00

-3.76

-.97

-1.16

1.45

-.57

1.81

1.09

11

155

78

83

.80

.69

.75

.63

-.99

-1.14

-1.29

-1.54

1.31

.97

1.14

.81

12

156

65

72

.68

.63

.53

.49

-.55

-.59

-1.09

-1.17

.92

.82

.63

.57

14

1157

57

73

.65

.53

.68

.65

-.27

-.33

-.90

-.94

.86

.62

.93

.86

2158

61

61

.66

-.32

.61

.45

-.41

-3.84

-.44

-.60

.88

-.33

.77

.50

3159

58

87

.52

.69

.49

.56

-2.21

-1.68

-2.27

-2.01

.61

.95

.5671

.:74

4160

88

92

.54

.50

.52

.47

-2.13

-2.33

-2.75

-3.00

.65

.57

5161

72

70

.61

.58

.69

.51

-.95

-1.01

-.74

-1.00

.78

.71

.95

.59

6162

60

67

.63

.48

.76

.65

-.41

-.54

-.58

-.68

.80

.54

1.18

.86

7163

66

66

.53

.39

.57

.46

-.78

-1.08

-.73

-.90

.63

.42

.69

.51

8164

80

86

.70

.74

.85

.95

-1.20

-1.14

-1.28

-1.15

.99

1.10

1.59

2.89

9165

78

86

.81

.83

.85

.85

-.98

-.95

-1.30

-1.30

1.36

1.51

1.61

1.59

10

166

58

60

.55

.48

.72

.60

-.37

-.42

-.36

-.44

.65

.55

1.05

.74

11

167

68

66

.54

.50

.42

.38

-;86

-.93

-.95

-1.05

.64

.57

.47

.41

12

168

56

55

.66

.56

.58

.56

-.23

-.27

-.23

-.23

.88

.68

.70

.67

1 is

Table 6 (Continued)

Concept

Task Item

Proportion

Correct

Boys.

Concept

Biserial Correlation

Boys

Concept. Task

X50

,

Task

Conceot

Beta

Task

Boys

Girls

Task

Girls

Concept Task

Girls

Concept

Boys Task.

Girls

Conceot

15

1169

62

70

.73

.70

.55

.58

-.43

-.45

-.97

-.91

1.06

.98

.66

.72

2170

73

85

.82

.85

.64

.73

-.76

-.72

-1.64

-1.44

1.40

1.62

.83

1.07

3171

62

56

.70

.47

.58

.45

-.45 '

-.68

-.26

-.33

.99

.53

.71

.50

4.

172

90

82

.38

.3.2

.33

.41

-3.30

-3.96

-2.81

-2.26

.42

.34

.35

.45

5173

76

73

.73

.63

.68

.48

-.96

-1.12

-.92

-1.29

1.07

.80

.92

.55

6174

64

30

.48

.29

.44

.31

.92

1.54

1.16

1.63

.55

.30

.49

.33

7175

60

62

.67

.63

.61

.58

-.38

.41

-.49

-.52

.91

.80

.77

.71

8176

68

78

.73

.86

.81

.85

-.67

-.57

-.94

-.89

1.08

1.66

1.39

1.65

9;177

68

75

.72

.71

.78

.68

-.66

-.67

-.87

-.99

1.04

1.02

1.23

.92

10

178

55

55

.48

.45

.49

.40

-.28

-.30

-.27

-.32

.55

.50

.56

.44

11

179

52

37

.44

.33

.45

.30

-.12

-.16

.71

1.08

.49

.35

.51

.31

12

180

63

63

.86

.75

.83

.82

-.40

-.46

-.39

-.39

1.67

1.13

1.46

1.43

11

181

76

87

.73

.80

.82

.75

-.98

-.90

-1.40

-1.53

1.08

1.33

1.41

1.12

.2

182

77

83

.78

-.43

.71

.70

-.97

-2.80

-1.34

-1.36

1.24

-.48

1.02

.98

3183

90

86

.67

.65

.58

.67

-1.93

-1.99

-1.86

-1.61

.91

.86

.72

.91

4 5

184

185

90 f

74

87

64

.49

.82

.43

.70

.57

.71

.49

-.54

-2.64

-.77

-3.04

-.91

-1.96

-.52

-2.26

-3.20

.57

1.45

.47

.97

.70

1.02

.57

-.64

6186

82

74

.84

.63

.79

.64

-1.10

-1.47

-.80

-.99

1.54

.81

1.28

.84

7187

58

50

.73

.72

.81

.65

-.28

-.28

-.01

-.01

1.06

1.05

1.40

.86

8188

68

64

.80

.76

.76

.60

-.58

-.61

-.47

-.60

1.33

1.17

1.18

.75

9189

61

68

.77

.64

.82

.75

-.37

-.45

-.57

-.62

1.22

.82

1.46

1.15

10

190

63

69

.74

.70

.79

.77

-.47

-.49

-.62

-.63

1.08

.97

1.3'0

1.20

11

191

48

41

.52

.36

.59

.56

.10

.15

.41

.43

.60

.39

.73

.67

12

192

68

61

.69

.70

.78

.75

-.69

-.68

-.37

-.39

.95

.99

1.25

1.12

17

1193

84

88

.61

.65

.81

.78

-1.65

-1.56

-1.47

-1.53

.77

.85

1.40

1.26

2194

69

76

.77

.68

.75

.70

-.64

-.72

-.93

-.99

1.19

.92

1.13

.98

3195

83

87

.77

.68

.60

.60

-1.22

-1.40

-1.88

-1.86

1.22

.92

.74

.76

4196

90

91

.59

.72

.50

.31

-2.20

-1.81

-2.68

-4.41

.73

1.04

.58

.32

5197.

86

87

.60

.69

.84

.86

-1.81

-2.25

-1.33

-1.31

.75

-.96

1.56

1.67

6198

72

72

.67

.64

.69

.64

-.85

-.89

-.86

-.92

.90

.83

.95

.84

7199

60

68

.66

.55

.82

.69

-.39

-.47

-.58

-.69

.87

.66

1.44

.95

8200

67

63

.60

.58

.66

.58

-.72

-.74

-.50

-.57

.75

.72

.89

.71

9201

72

66

.75

.68

.65

.50

-.76

-.84

-.65

-.85

1.13

-

.93

.85

.57

10

202

65

70

.74

-.41

.73

.74

-.50

-2.90

.-.72

-.72

1.11

-.45

1.08

1.10

Table 6 (Continued)

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Correlation

X50

Beta

'

Boy

s.Girls

Boys

Girls

.

Boys

Girls

Concept Task Item Boys Girls

Concept Task

Concept Task

Concept

Task

Concept

Task

Concept Task

Concept Task -

17

18

1

19 20

11

203

22

31

.30

-.37

.14

.05

2.59

-1.85

3.54

9.44

.32

-.40

.15

,05

12

204

63

68

.67

.71

.72

.65

-.51

-.49

7.63

-.70

.91

1.00

1.04

.87

1205

94

98

-.64

.43

.32

.61

-2.50

-3.52

-6.15

-3.25

-.84

.48

.34

.78

2206

85.

93

.62

.59

.76

.87

-1.66

-1.77.

-1.99

-1.73

.79

.72

1.17

1.78

3207

69

78

.79

.59

.87

.63

-.64

-.85

-.89

-1.23

1.27

.73

1.76

.81

4208

74

78

.68

.42

.82

.54

-.93

-1.49

-.96

-1.44

.92

.47

1.42

.65

5209

58

64

.68.

.45

.72

.51

-.28

-.42

-.52

-.72

.93

.50

1.03

.60

6210

63

70

.68

.65

.71

.58

-.48

-.51

-.75

-.92

.93

.86

1.00

.71

7211

54

69

.65

.66

.63

.51

-.15

-.14

-.77

-.95

.86

.88

.81

.60

8212

65

61

.57

.38

.76

.58

-.67

-1.01

-.38

-.50

.70

.41

1.18

.72

9 .213

56

71

.74

.72

.77

.58

-.20

-.21

-.73

-.98

1.11

1.04

1.21

.71

10.

214

74

82

.79

.71

.67

.65

-.80

-.90

-1.37

-1.41

1.31

1.00

.91

.86

II

215

42

41

.42

.37

.63

.36

.48

.55

38

,.66

.46

.40

.81

.39

'12

216-

59

68

.63

.55

.47

.48

-.35

-.39

-1.01

-.99

.81

.66

.53

.55

217

86

88

.64

.62

.67

.63

-1.70

-1.74

-1.77

-1.86

.82

.80

.e9

.82

'2'

218

72

77

.66

.65

.64

.43

-.88

-.90

-1.15

-1.70

.89

.85

.83

.48

3219

90

94

.94

.96

.98

.85

-1.35

-1.33

-1.60

-1.85

2.82

3.28

5.08

-1.61

4.220

91

94

.43

.55

.48

.09

-3.13

-2.44

-3.21

-17.40

.47

.65

.55

.09

5221

67

67

.55

.47

.45

.41

-.78

-.92

-.96

-1.05

.66

.53

.51

-

.45

6222

70

74

.73

.77

.79

.70

-.72

-.67

-.82

-.92

1.06

1.22

1.29

-

.99

7223

66

76

.67

.55

.61

.52

-.62

-.75

-1.13

-1.33

.90

.67

.78

.61

8224

75

83

.77

.79

.81

.69

-.88

-.86

-1.19

-1.41

1.22

1.30

1.39.

-

.95

9225

63

64

.58

.51

.52

.48

7:59

-.68

-.69

-5.59

.72

.59

.61

-.16

10

226

87

91

.62

.65

.50

.58

-1.82

-1.73

-2.65

-2.29

.79

.86

.58

.71

11

227

-58

64

.56

.57

.73

.63

-.34

-.34

-.51

-.59

.68

.69

1.05

.81

12

228

54

55

.51

.47

.52

.47

-.18

-.20

-.25

-.28

.60

.53

.61

.54

1229

72

81

.69

.73

.69

.57

-.85

-.80

-1.25

-1.51

.95

1.07

.96

.70

2230

81

87

.70

.74

.52

.50

-1.24

-1.18

-2.18

-2.28

.98

1.09

.61

.58

3231

80

91

.57

.63

.55

.57

-1.49

-1.34

-2.46

-2.36

.69

.82

.65

.70

4232

71

73

.39

.25

.29

.22

-1.43

-2.25

-2.10

-2.72

.42

.25

.30

.23

5233

88

92

.69

.74

.66

.57

,71.67

-1.57

-2.13

-2.44

.97

1.09

.87

.70

6234

81

86

.77

.65

.86

.70

:-1.13

-1.33

-1.26

-1.56

1.20

.86

1.72

.97

7235

51

63

.55

.51

.71

.57

-.05

-.05

-.48

-.60

.67

.59

1.01

.69

8236

60

64

.71

.67

.76

.61

-.34

-.37

-.47

-.59

1.01

.90

1.18

.77

Table 6

(Continued)

Concept Task

Item

Proportion

Correct

Boys

Concept

Biserial Correlation

Boys

Concept

X50

Task

Boyi

Concept

Beta

Task

Boys Girls

Task

Girls

Concept Task

Task

Girls

Concept

Task

Girls

Concept

20

9237

71

80

.74

.70

.85

.87

-.75

-.79

-.97

-.95

1.09

-.98

1.63

1.78

10

238

77

79

.79

.76

.85

.68

-.95

-.99

-.95

-1.19

1.29

1.17

1.63

.94

11

239

77

88

.72

.66

.75

.75

-1.03

-1.11

-1.57

-1.56

1.02

-89

1.13

1.14

12

240

68

73

.75

.69

.65

.60

-.61

-.67

-.93

-1.01

1.15

.94

.85

.74

21

1241

81

85

.63

.78

.60

.77

-1.38

-1.11

-1.68

-1.32

.80

1.25

.76

1.22

2242

72

80

.70

.74

.51

.56

-.81

-.77

-1.67

-1.52

.98

1.09

.59

.68

3243

.46

37

.52

.33

.63

.32

.18

.29

.53

1.04

.60

.35

.80

.33

4244

43

31

.57

.36

.59

.39

.31

.48

.85

1.30

.70

.39

.73

.42

*

5245

49

47

.58

.44

.59

.40

.02

.03

.11

.16

.72

.49

.73

.43

6246

63

59

.57

.51

.60

-.11

-.61

-.67

-.37

-5.65

.69

.60

.74

-:12

'.7

247

46

44

.70

.59

.50

.51

.14

.16

.28

.28

.96

.74

.59

.59

8248

66

60

.63

.64

.63

.54

-.66

-.65

-.39

-.46

.81

.82

.81

.64

`9

249

51

41

.65

.54

.85

.62

-.04

-.05

.27

.37

.86

.64

1.59

.80

10

250

48

'37

.Si

.32

.54

.34

.11

.17

.61

.98

.59

.34

.65

.36

11

251

.52

49

.78

.58

.58

.38

-.07

-.09

.04

.06

1.23

.71

.70

.41

12

252

44

34

.38

.36

.50

.36

.39

.42

.82

1.15

.41

.38

.58

.39

22

1253

80

79

.62

.63

.58

.56

-1.37

-1.34

-1.40

-1.45

.78

.81

.72

.68

2254

76

81

.67

.61

.51

.48

-1.08

-1.18

-1.72

-1.83

.90

.77

.60

.55

3255

67

70

.59

.49

.55

.46

-.73

-.88

-.93

.-1.10

.73

.56

.65

.52

4256

82

87

.67

.61

.71

.70

-1.35

-1.48

-1.58

-1.59

.91

.78

1.00

.99

5257

65.

58

.56

.46

.68

.52

-.66

-.81

-.28

-.37

.68

.51

.93

.60

6258

49

56

.65

.63

.60

.53

.04

.04

-.27

-.30

.85

.81

.75

.62

7259

56

59

.69

.67

.60

.60

-.22

-.22

-.38

-.38

.96

.91

:75

.77

8260

64

68

.64

.64

.63

.61

-.56

-.56

-.74

-.76

.83

.84

.82

.78

9261

70

69

.55

.47

.67

.62

-.95

-1.11

-.75

-.81

.66

.53

.89

1.52

10

262

74

75

.72

.72

.74

.84

-.90

-.90

-.91

-.80

1.05

1.04

1.09

.87

11

263

56

68

.69

.74

.62

.66

-.22

-.20

-.74

-.69

.96

1.10

.78

.87

12

264

61

59

.63

.59

.57

.74

-.43

-.46

-.42

-.51

.82

.73

.70

.54

23

1265

51

60

.68

.57

.82

.73

-.02

-.02

-.31

-.36

.92

.69

1.46

1.07

2266

68

69

.73

.63

.76

.69

-.65

-.75

-.64

-.70

1.06

.81

1.17

.95

3267

81

75.

.54

.45

.58

.44

-1.61

-1.93

-1.17

-1.52

.64

.50

.70

.49

4268

69

80:

.58

.58

.70

.69

-.87

-.88

-1.21

-1.24

.71

.70

.99

.95

5269

83

86

.65

.70

.76

.80

-1.49

-1.38

-1.44

-1.35

.85

.98

1.15

1.34

Table 6 (Continued)

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Correlation

X50

Beta

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Boys

Girls

Concept Task

Item

Boys

Girls

Concept Task 'Concept Task

Concept

Task

Concept

Task

Concept Task

Concept Task

23

6270

56

58

.79

.73

.74

.66

'

-.20

-.22

-.27

-.30

1.30

1.06

1.10

.88

7.271

52

49

.56

.60

.66

.58

-.07

-.07

.02

.03

.68

.76

.88

.71

8272

55

65

.80

.73

.71

.64

-.17

-.18

-.55

-.61

1.31

1.08

1.01

.83

9273

66

69

.81

.70

.81

.72

-.51

-.59

-.62

-.70

1.38

.99

1.36

1.03

10

274

69

73

.74

.77

.66

.62

-.69

-.66

-.93

-.99

1.09

1.20

.87 .

.79

11

275

56

58

.48

.35

.43

.25

-.31

-.43

-.45

-.76

.54

.37

.47

.26

12

276

44

38

.23

.25

.36

.32

.64

.60

-1.65

.97

.24

'.26

-.34

.34

24

1277

90

91

.57

.56

.70

.90

-2.30

-2.31

-1.91

-1.50

.69

.68

.99

2.03

2278

81

83'

.67

.66

.51.

.71

-1.32

-1.34

-1.89

-1.35

.90

.88

.59

1.00

3279

81

78

.75

.36

.75

.68

-1.17

-2.46

-1.01

-1.12

1.15

.39

1.14

.93

4280

52

44

.56

.52

.51

.39

-.07

-.08

-1.20

.39

.68

.61

-.28

.42

5281

77

79

.63

.65

.68

.57

-1.16

-1.13

-1.20

-1.43

.82

.86

.92

.69

6282

42

46

.49

.47

.29'

.16

.41

.43

.38

.71

.57

.54

.30

.16

7283

48

48

.43

.28

.29

.15

.13

.20

.22

.41

.48

.29

.30

.16

8284

74

70

.72

.69

.65

.46

-.90

-.94

-.80

-1.13

1.04

.96

.86

.52

9.

285

46

42

.61

.50

.50

.39

.18

.22

.40

.51

.77

.57

.57

.42

'

10

286

66

62

.69

.73

.66

.57

-.58

-.55

-.45

-.52

.95

1.07

.38

.70

11

287

76

70

.74

.60

.70

.69

-.98

-1.20

-.76

-.77

1.09

.75

.97

.95

12

288

36

37

.33

.23

.38

.25

1.09

1.54

.87

1.31

.35

.24

.41

.26

25

1289

85

88

.91

.73

.97

.84

-1.16

-1.45

-1.19

-1.38

2.25

1.06

4.33

1.52

2290

72

77

.76

.55

.74

.67

-.76

-1.06

-.99

-1.09.

1.19

.66

1.11

.91

3291

96

95

.52

.73

.63

.82

-3.00

-2.14

-2.59

-1.99

.61

1.07

.82

1.45

4292

87

92

.54

.55

.70

.69

-2.11

-2.06

-1.99

-2.03

.64

.66

.99

.95

5293

80

79

.57

.55

.45

.35

-1.50

-1.54

-1.79

-2.32

.69

.65

.51

.37

6294

69

77

.70

.60

.81

.66

-.73

-.85

-.90

-1.10

.97

.74

1.40

.89

7295

56

63

.73

.61

.69

.53

-.20

-.24

-.50

-.64

1.07

.77

.94

.63

8296

67

'69

.61

.50

.61

.53

-.70

-.86

-.80

-.92

.77

.58

.77

_63

9297

46

56.

.68

.50

.62

.45

.16

.21

-.23

-.31

.92

.58

.78

.51

10

298

78

70

.52

-.39

.70

.66

-1.51

-3.67

-.76

-.81

.61

-.43

.97

.87

11

299

81

87

.60

.48

.72

.70

-1.44

-1.82

-1.56

-1.60

.75

.54

1.03

.98

12

300

74

70

.61

.61

.57

.59

-1.04

-1.04

-.93

-.90

.77

.76

.70

.74

26

1301

.70

77

.67

.53

.67

.60

-.77

-.98

-1.09

-1.23.

.91

.63

.91

.74

2302

42

37

.29

.21

.48

.41

.70

-8.42

-.69

.80

.30

-.22

.55

.45

IV3

303

92

96.

.59

.82

.81

.65

-2.43

-1.76

-2.13

-2.63

.73

1.41

1.38

.87

c.,

Table 6 (Continued)

Concept Task

Item

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Correlation

Boys

Concept

X50

Task

Boys

Concept

Beta

Task

BOYS Girls

Boys

Concept Task

Girls

Concept Task

Task

Girls

Concept

Task

Girls

Concept

26

4 5 6 7,307

8 9 10.

11

12

27

-1.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

'10

11 12

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

12

304

305

306

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

31'7

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

323

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

89

96

90

94

33

46

56

.

66

65

65

67

81

74

79

59

64

38

35

69

80

77

82

56

56

53

54

56

57

69

82

40

42

60

66

46

44

,56'

51

25

28

53

58

63

66

67

76

88

93

88

90

8292

75

80

62

79

63

80

45

56

65

70

83

92

76

83

.63

.78

.79

.81

.45

.41

.68

.70

.74

.60

.72

.60

.75

.68

.57

.58

.55

.59

.63

.66

.59

.71

.37

.52

.33

.63

.54

.74

.67

.57'

.39

.42

.45

.41

.30

.56

.59

.32

.21

.50

.48

,65

.58

.76

.59

.69

.74

.85

.86

.71

.65.

.75

.73

.69

.64

.80

.70

.72

.62

.65

..67

.71

.52

.73

.56

.73

.74

.57

.67

.68

.71

.71

.57

.55

.61

.56

.65

.61

.62

.76

.43

.49

.30

.58

.37

.60

.58

.78

.67

.68

.87

.74

.68

,58

.72

.80

74

.65

.86

.74

.53

.72

.5i

.70

.65

.54

.48

.68

.61

.43

.40

.75

.32

.39

.22

.53

.20

.42

.54

.73

.54

.53

.90

.60

.49

.48

.62

.66

.54

.50

-1.97

-1.60

.95

-.22

-.50

-.60

-.87

-.34

.54

-.83

-1.14

-.21

-.13

-.26

-.69

.43

-.61-

.23

-.29

2.06

-.16

-.50

-.57

-1.70

-1.39

-1.30

-.91

-.43

-.43

.19

-.59

-1.34

-.99

-1.60

-1.56

1.05

-.21

-.62

-.71

-2.86

-.41

.58

-.78

-1.27

-.40

-.20

-.30

-.75

.62

-.58

.31

-.27

3.22

-.17

-.57

-.73

-1.59

-1.38

-1.42

-.93

-.47

-.49

.22

-.58

-1.81

-1.29

-2.36

-2.07

.16

-.61

-.58

-1.26

-1.14

-.65

.71

-1.35

-1.62

-.22

-.15

-.29

-1.19

.49

-.87

.53

-.06

1.57

-.33

-.70

-.89

-2.16

-1.86

-1.63

-1.12

-1.19

-1.45

-.19

-.65

-1.93

-1.50

-2.00

-2.09

.17

-.57

-.69

-1.27

-1.25

.69

.82

-1.22

-1.49

-.32

-.23

-.35

-1.21

.66

-1.10

.74

-.06

2.84

-.48

-.74

-.95

-2.69

-2.35

-1.59

-1.40

-1.67

-1.75

-.23

-.80

-2.65

-1.92

.01

1.30

.51

.93

1.11

1.05

1.12

.92

.72

.73

.87

1.01

.61

.80

1.09

.70

.47

.44

.67

.34

.57

.86

1.16

.97

1.63

1.01

1.15

.96

1.35

1.02

.86

1.00

1.06

1.23

1.39

.45

.97

.75

.76

-.51

.69

.65

.81

.73

.40

.34

.65

.91

.43

.50

.32

.74

.21

.55

.71

.73

1.11

1.67

.86

1.08

.83

.99

.80

.91

.61

.67

1.07

1.12

.70

.91

.93

1.01

1.02

.69

.67

.77

.68

.86

.77

.79

1.18

.48

.56.

.31

.72

.39

.75

.72

1.26

.91

.92

1.78

1.13

.94

.71

1.05

1.31

1.10

.85

1.69

1.09

.62

1.05

.69

.99

.85

.64

.55

.92

.48

.44

.60

1.14

.33

.42

.22

.62

.21

.46

.65

1.07

.64

.63

2.02

.75

.56

.55

.80

.87

.64

.58

..c.r

ay..r

owas

ncri

sair

cra.

..er.

a.rt

rzw

v=rm

itoya

dmzz

}gra

mrz

ymir

eNA

NW

IER

I47,

Tab

le 6

(C

ontin

ued)

Proportion

Correct

Biserial Correlation

xso

POw

mpl

eTm

!my5

rwrT

T7T

-M-7

17'7

.TY

!,gF

C*7

.15.

"1-7

-rnc

l1W

;;7-7

7,fi

Con

cept

Tas

kIt

emB

oys

Gir

lsBoys

Con

cept

Tas

kG

irls

Con

cept

Tas

kBoys

Concept

Task

Girls

Con

cept

Tas

k

29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

,9

10

-11

12

30-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

11

,

.12

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

75

81 82

88

87

70

32

5862

63

77

40

77

79

88

80

83

59

4466

78

86

47

47

85

9090

87

90

73

3468

7064

7132

88

85

95

80

90

63

46

63

80

83

41

54

.75

-.41

.79

.74

.61

.59

.67

.40

.72

.75

.69

.65

.50

.36

.77

.61

.73

.66

.56

-.28

.51

.49

.57

.59

.85

.80

.96

.82

.60

.78.

.78

.78

.87

.83

.58

.37

.49

.53

.55

.43

.85

-.58

.74

.72

.48

.43

.53

.62

.80

.90

.70

.55

.82

.67

.65

.72

.81

.58

.53

.38

.80

.75

.66

.61

.71

.50

.49

.58

.70

.70

.48

.52

.80

.86

.71

.61

.87

.64

.48

.56

.76

.46

.38

.42

.91

.74

.68

.63

.94

.41

.34

.30

.44

.77

.34

.45

-.91

-1.12

-1.52

-1.72

-1.58

-.76

'

,92

-.26

-.41

-.59

-1.49

.46

-.88

-.84

-1.96

-1.06

-1.09

-.40

.31

-.73

-.93

-1.46

.14

.15

-3.18

-1.19

-1.57

-2.89

-1.51

-.81

1.27

-.33

-.45

-4.97

-1.54

.44

-.94

-.98

-1.52

-1.06

-1.14

-,62

.28

-.94

-2.68

-1.50

.16

.13

-1.27

-1.44

-1.85

-2.06

-1.54

-.90

.65

-.65

-.65

-.61

-1.07

1.21

-1.45

-1.37

-2.48

-1.39

-1.81

-.66

.23

-.59

-1.21

-1.38

.48

-.20

-1.27

-1.52

-1.84

-1.86

-1.44

-.94

.89

-.84

-.70

-.77

-1.43

1.09

-1.28

-1.38

-2.42

-1.33

-1.36

.80

.32

-1.14

-1.94

-1.27

.68

-.23

Bet

aB

oys

Con

cept

Tas

kG

irls

Con

cept

Tas

k1.14

-.45

1.33

1.33

1.28

1.12

2.08

1.66

.76

;73

.99

1.00

.91

.44

.67

.77

1.02

1.13

1.41

1.77

.94

.85

.89

.84

.58

.39

.86

.54

1.22

.78

1.03

.67

1.07

.88

1.40

1.15

.67

-.29

.70

.51

.59

.56

.63,

.41

.69

.72

.41 j

.46

1.64

1.34

1.33

2.16

3.64

1,45

1.12

1.10

.76

1.24

.89

.92

1.26

1.24

.76

.81

1.77

1.48

.99

2.70

.71

.40

.57

.45

.56

.63

.56

.37

.66

.47

.71

.31

1.62

.72

.99

.49

1.10

1.04

.99

1.19

.54

.48

.54

.36

.63

.78

.61

.50

point theta begins to increase quite rapidly inmagnitude in comparison to the biserial cor-relation. It may be pointed out that beta isalways equal to or greater (absolute) than thebiserial correlation. As a general rule, .30is often used as a lower cutting point for adesirable biserial correlation or a beta.. Fora total score composed of relatively few items,as is the concept score, a much higher mini-mum would be desirable.

It can be noted from Table 6 that only 36of the 360 items (10%) had betas less than0.30 when functioning as either part of a con-cept criterion score or a task criterion score.

It is of further note that when raising the betalevel to 0.40 only one-sixth of the test itemshave beta scores less than this value whenfunctioning as either part of a concept criterionscore or a task criterion score. For thoseitems which had betas less than 0.40, 52were weaker items when they functioned aspart of a task criterion score. A comparisonof items for the girls and the boys indicatesno preference for one group over the other interms of the magnitude of the betas.

In general, only 10 of the 360 items func-tioned poorly as part of both the concept cri-terion score and the task criterion score.

01.0 II17411.4

IA'

IVConclusions

The discussion of the means, standarddeviations, and Hoyt reliability estimates pre-sented in this paper for the concept attain-ment tests and the task attainment tests indi-cates that the tests as constructed are appro-priate for facilitating the overall objectivesof the project entitled "A Structure of ConceptAttainment Abilities." Further support for theappropriateness of these test instruments isobtained from the examination of four differentitem indices: proportion correct, item criterionbiserial correlation, X50, and beta. The analy-ses of these four indices based on each of

two criterion scores indicate that it is appro-priate to use these tests to continue pursuanceof the study of the relationship between con-cept attainment, task performance, and se-lected measures of cognitive ability. Theitem indices show that these items are ofappropriate difficulty level for use with sub-jects at this age level. It is further indicatedby analyses of these data that the majorityof the items have desirable levels of discrim-ination indices when the item is both a partof a concept criterion score and a taskcri-terion score.

27 .2S'

References

Baker, F. B. An intersection of test scoreinterpretation and item analysis. journalof Educational Measurement, 1964, 1, 23-28.

Baker, F. B. FORTAP: A FORTRAN test analysispackage. Department of Educational Psychol-ogy, The University of Wisconsin, 1969.

Bourne, L. E., Jr. Human conceptual behav-ior. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1966.

Prayers D. A., Fredrick, W. C., & Klausmeier,H. J. I, schema for testing the level of con-cept mastery. Wisconsin Research and De-velopment Center for Cognitive Learning,Working Paper No 16, 1969.

Harris, M. L., Harris, C. W., Frayer, D. A.,& Quilling, M. R. A structure of conceptattainment abilities: The problem and strat-egies for attacking it. Wisconsin Researchand Development Center for Cognitive Learn-

GPO 1111741111

ing, Theoretical Paper No. 32, in press.Klausmeier, H. J., Harris, C. W., Davis, J.

K., Schwenn, E., & Frayer, D. A. Strat-egies and cognitive processes in conceptlearning. The University of Wisconsin,Cooperative Research Project No. 2850, 1968.

Voelker, A. M., Sorenson, J. S., & Frayen, D.A. An analysis of selected classificatoryscience concepts in preparation for writingtests of concept attainment. Wisconsin. Re-search and Development Center for CognitiveLearning, Working Paper No. 57, 1971.

Voelker, A. M., & Sorenson, J. S. Items formeasuring the level of attainment of selectedclassificatory science concepts by interme-diate grade children. Wisconsin Researchand Development Center for Cognitive Learn-ing, Working Paper No. 58, 1971.

29

National Evaluation Committee

Helen BainImmediate Past PresidentNational Education Association

Lyle E. Bourne, Jr.Institute for the Study of Intellectual BehaviorUniversiy of Colorado

Jeanne S. ChallGraduate School of EducationHarvard University

Francis S. ChaseDepartment of EducationUniversity of Chicago

George E. DicksonCollege of EducationUniversity of Toledo

Hugh J. ScottSuperintendent of Public SchoolsDistrict of Columbia

H. Craig SipeDepartment of InstructionState University of New York

G. Wesley SowardsDean of EducationFlorida International Universitr'

Benton J. UnderwoodDepartment of PsychologyNorthwestern University

Robert J. WisnerMathematics DepartmentNew Mexico State University

Executive Committee

William R. BushDirector of Program Planning and Managementand Deputy Director, R & D Center

Herbert J. Klausmeier, Committee ChairmanDirector, R & D Center

Wayne OttoPrincipal InvestigatorR &D Center

Robert G. PetzoldProfessor of MusicUniversity of Wisconsin

Richard A. RossmillerProfessor of Educational AdministrationUniversity of Wisconsin

James E. WalterCoordinator of Program PlanningR & D Center

Russell S. Way, ex officioProgram Administrator, Title III ESEAWisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Faculty of Principal Investigator.

Vernon L. AllenProfessor of Psychology

Frank H. FarleyAssociate ProfessorEducational Psychology

Marvin J. FruthAssociate ProfessorEducational Administration

John G. HarveyAssociate ProfessorMathematics

Frank H. HooperAssociate ProfessorChild Development

Herbert J. KlausmeierCenter DirectorV. A. C. Henmon ProfessorEducational Psychology

Stephen J. KnezevichProfessorEducational Administration

Joel R. LevinAssociate ProfessorEducational Psychology

L. Joseph LiraProfessorInstitutional Studies

Wayne OttoProfessorCurriculum and Instruction

Thomas A. RombergAssociate ProfessorCurriculum and Instruction

Peter A. SchreiberAssistant ProfessorEnglish

Richard L. VenezkyAssociate ProfessorComputer Science

Alan M. VoelkerAssistant ProfessorCurriculum and Instruction

Larry M. WilderAssistant ProfeisorCommunication Arts